Given the intransigience of the Ninth Circuit, I am surprised that they actually recognized the right to bear arms at all.

3:06 pm February 13, 2014

Gun Owner wrote:

If (and I believe the court is right here) we have this right, and concealing weapons is a privilege (permitted) which the state can regulate, then it follows that to exercise our right we must do so with open carry.

It may be a whole new way of thinking for some, but it is correct.

3:22 pm February 13, 2014

Grey Dread wrote:

Wow. A win for liberty. From what I read, states must allow either open carry or concealed carry for all law-abiding citizens.

3:32 pm February 13, 2014

MelissaB. wrote:

If we could (and should) all carry our guns on our person there would be a whole lot LESS STUPID going on in society.

3:37 pm February 13, 2014

ChristCrusader wrote:

PtL!

3:58 pm February 13, 2014

MadTom wrote:

Great to hear, but this begs the question: Who are these guys and what did they do with the REAL Ninth Circuit?

4:13 pm February 13, 2014

Anonymous wrote:

How about that, two justices on the ubber liberal 9tth Circuit can read the plain English in the 2nd Amendment.

4:17 pm February 13, 2014

Zulu wrote:

Where are the rest of the 9th judges and what is their views ?

4:27 pm February 13, 2014

Kirk wrote:

The ruling also falls in line with the two most recent 2nd Amendment cases from SCOTUS. Oh and, it makes a mockery of the reasoning applied by the other Circuits in reaching the results they did in regard to the right to carry outside the home.

Even if the 9th reverses en banc, look for SCOTUS to affirm on appeal.

4:49 pm February 13, 2014

thurman thompson wrote:

the Second Amendment’s right is still being modified by the courts here !
no where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to bear arms only with a perment to do so.! its time to conpleatley up hold the Second Amendment’. it was one of the founding laws!
and should be up head to the letter of the way it was first made . agen its a case of people picking and chuesing what they are going to up hold and not .

5:06 pm February 13, 2014

Ms. Juana wrote:

Not accurate, Grey Dread. States can still require individuals to pass a test to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Note that the Ct said that the “Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” While the states must permit concealed weapons, the states can still regulate the practice by requiring individuals to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. And the states can still require individuals to first pass a test to get the permit. Hopefully, the test will now disqualify, along with mental instability and insanity, gun nuts and Republicans.

5:19 pm February 13, 2014

Odumba wrote:

Hell freezes over!

5:50 pm February 13, 2014

ken wrote:

still restricting our liberties ,the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! that does not mean in some circumstances!

Often when I’m speaking to people who don’t hunt, target shoot, collect or own firearms, I’m faced with the task of explaining why they should care if the Second Amendment is revoked or curtailed. The attitude is often, “why should I care?” and “this doesn’t affect me.” The Second Amendment (“2A”) is a larger argument than the right to own firearms without undue restrictions. The reason the Founding Fathers put the 2A second illustrates its importance. Right after stating that the people’s right to protest, assemble, pray and petition the government for redress came the 2A: the right that ensures all other rights.

Many people say that the Founders never meant for people to have military style weapons. The intent was exactly that. At the time of the founding, the people had just fought a war with the monarchy that sought to control every aspect of their lives. A people that had traveled to almost the other side of the world to pray, govern, work and prosper as they saw fit were now burdened under a government that took away their liberties, sought to disarm them and taxed them without giving them a voice in how they were governed. A government that sought to make sanctioned religions superior to those that were not and used illegal means to silence their critics. And a government that took wealth from hardworking, successful people and sought to redistribute it to others. I’ll pause for a moment to see if any of this sounds familiar.

At the time the 2A was drafted it would have been simple to say “bows and arrows” or “swords only”, but The Founders knew that without parity of force with any tyranny the tyranny would always win. The people who had fought the British fought with similar (and in some cases superior) weapons. In a day when governments have tanks, drones, rocket launchers, bombers, fighters, smart bombs, dumb bombs, and blue water navies, a semi-automatic rifle is hardly the parity the founders envisioned. The Framers’ intent was that every adult, capable of defending their nation (the “militia”) should be allowed to own weapons giving them parity with any tyranny.

But why? Surely in our progressive, modern society with the protection of law enforcement and the military such weapons in the hands of the average citizen are simply unnecessary. The exact opposite is true.
Even only looking at the past 100 years of rule by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others, the citizens were always disarmed into a coercive state and done so by law enforcement or the military. Disarming a populace is necessary to control them, whether by an internal force or an external one.

Even the Commander of the Japanese Navy understood this during World War II. He was adamantly opposed to any plans to try to invade the USA, stating “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” He understood that the spirit of nationhood and independence of the average citizen, along with ready access to weapons would force such an invasion to fail.
What about self-defense? The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that law enforcement has no duty to or legal liability to protect any individual, just society in general. Translated that means if the police don’t get to your home when you call in time to save your life, they don’t have any liability. That’s just your bad luck. The right of self-defense has been steadily eroded since the early 1900’s in the US.

Many of these acts are clocked in the language of reform or hidden in other legislation. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the importation of inexpensive firearms, and further criteria were added over the years. The net effect is that if you’re poor, you’re simply out of luck finding a firearm selling new for less than about $300. While there was never any definitive link between less expensive weapons and crime, there firearms were labeled “Saturday Night Specials” and a media campaign was created to make them seem more dangerous that other firearms. This overlooks the fact that dead is dead.

Back to rights, it’s important to understand that in the eyes of The Founders the Constitution gives us nothing. It’s not a list of privileges the government bestows upon us. It’s a warning letter to future governments that this is the least we can expect. The Declaration of Independence made this clear, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights were further enunciated in The Bill of Rights. Not rights granted by the state to individuals, but a warning to the state that these are the basic rights of any man.

But I don’t own a gun? Why should I care?

Do you pray? Why should we let someone worship a tree? Or any God other than a Christian God? Because that is their right as granted in The Bill of Rights. No religion can be promoted or suppressed by the government. That’s the right all citizens have to worship as they see fit without interference.

Have you every marched in a protest march or sued the government? Even in recent memory none of the changes of the 1960’s: the Civil Rights Act, the rise of gender equality and the end to the Vietnam war would have occurred without this right. All of those changes were gained by people protesting their government. A right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Do you have problems with the government throwing you out of your home so they can house soldier there? Thank the 3rd Amendment. It seems silly now, but during the Civil War, the Federal Courts had to act to prevent the US Government from doing this.

It all comes down to what protects this country over the long term from tyranny and oppression. Every small step acting to limit the Second Amendment should be viewed as if it is an attack on the First Amendment. Let’s all look at it that way. A waiting period…… before you can speak your mind? A limit on the number of…….. arguments you can have about your government? A limit on the size of…… your churches’ congregation? It seems very different when viewed that way. (Weeks, 2013)

Detective Paige Anderson Weeks (Ret.)

6:29 pm February 13, 2014

Ms Juana wrote:

…and ken, it’s cute the way you personally interpret the Constitution, but it’s of no merit. The Constitution, as written, is in fact rather ambiguous. Hence, it’s historical controversy. Why not join your fellow nut cases by putting your interpreting skills to better use by reading tea leaves? Or interpreting passages from the bible?

6:37 pm February 13, 2014

Ms Juana wrote:

Detective Paige Anderson Weeks (Ret.) sowed the seeds of his own intellectual destruction. His freedom to worship and freedom to march are perfect examples of how the government can in fact restrict the exercise of one’s Constitutional rights, including the 2d Amen. right.
The gov’t prohibits everyone—except Native Americans—from using drugs (peyote) in their religious services. It also requires protesters to first get a permit from the city to march. Similarly, gov’t can impose similar restrictions on the gun ownership, like you gott’a get a license, you can’t own machine guns and you must pass a test to be sure one’s not a Republican to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

6:45 pm February 13, 2014

Hoping it sticks wrote:

I do hope this ruling sticks. A year or so of national open carry and we would finally get around to rewriting the Second Amendment in order to deal with the technological issues evident since the late 19th Century. That would be a messy, bloody year, but perhaps we could finally write an unambiguous sentence or two with which to replace the archaic Second.

6:50 pm February 13, 2014

Larry Spenzak wrote:

Hell must have frozen over!

7:01 pm February 13, 2014

Ms. Juana, wrote:

Thank you for your comment. Just so you you are informed, I think you should come to the understanding and revelation that I am a female. My son is part American Indian and am fully aware of their rights. I write in APA format and am a Libertarian. Now, that you are informed, You should do more research before posting on something that is above your reading and comprehension capabilities. Thank you and continue on with your ordinary life.

7:26 pm February 13, 2014

Jocko wrote:

I favor concealed bear. Open bear is really grizzly.

7:40 pm February 13, 2014

Terry330 wrote:

Guns are less and less reverent, with science pushing technology rapidly. But if you want to shoot a family member the Glock 9mm / 40 S&W is the weapon of choice, you are 3-4 times more likely to kill a family member / yourself than a criminal.

7:44 pm February 13, 2014

Wil wrote:

Unbelievable. The 9th Circus? They will probably rule later that the guns need to be toy guns.

7:48 pm February 13, 2014

Mr. Henson wrote:

Terry330, where are the statistics to demonstrate (statistics do not prove) your points. Do not use suicides in your analyses, as these do not support your hypothesis.

8:12 pm February 13, 2014

Ms Juana wrote:

@7:01, oh I believe that you’re a Libertarian all right. And I’m still not impressed. Hey, did you know that Joseph Goebbels held libertarian ideas? Makes you ideologically alike; no? And no, you don’t understand the rights of Native Americans. And what precisely that has to do with the 2nd Amend and the legitimate restrictions imposed on that right, well, I have no idea. But I’m betting that neither do you.

9:21 pm February 13, 2014

Yaakov Watkins wrote:

The police have no obligation to protect us. A cop can watch a citizen be slowly crippled and will not be guilty of any criminal act. Nor will his employer be liable for the injuries. It is only logical that we have the civil right to protect ourselves.

9:35 pm February 13, 2014

Lsjogren wrote:

Hood grief guano. Libertarianism and totalitarian government are diametric opposites.

10:51 pm February 13, 2014

John Posthill wrote:

Memo to Detective Paige Anderson Weeks (Ret.):

Sir, I salute you. I agree completely. Fine work.

7:39 am February 14, 2014

John Posthill wrote:

Thank you. I am glad you like it. I am a female by the way. Ha-ha! You have a great day!

7:52 am February 14, 2014

Army Guy wrote:

Just got home from Afghanistan. As everyone can imagine. Everyone is carrying fully loaded and not concealed. Everyone was very polite to each other, even during arguments. In fact most arguments were over in 1 or 2 minutes. I believe it was because each was carrying and understood that at anytime the person you were in a disagreement with could kill you if you got out of line.

10:37 am February 14, 2014

Bob W wrote:

Thank you Ms. Anderson for a thoughtful post. The contrast with the trolls is particularly striking. I saved a copy for future reference.

1:04 pm February 14, 2014

Tyree wrote:

This has serious implications for New York State. NY's law, as written, make no mention of cause or justification or limits on type or place of concealed carry. The issuing authorities, primarily county judges, have decided that they will require applicants to state their reason for wanting "unrestricted" concealed carry and self-defense is not a compelling argument. Most of the so-called "concealed carry' licenses in NY state are highly restricted. You can only "carry" to and from a shooting range or to and from hunting. If you are found with the handgun under other circumstances your license may be revoked, which means disposing of all handguns. To repeat- none of this is in the law, just judicial practice and higher level state courts have ruled it a legal execise of judicial 'discretion'. Here's hoping the SC takes on this issue.

5:01 pm February 14, 2014

Constitutional Conservative wrote:

I agree with the well written and thoughtful statements by Detective Paige Anderson Weeks (Ret.). It is only logical that we as citizens of this great country, we have the same weapons as does our government. Had our ancestors been restricted to weapons less than those that were being used against us, we would never have won the Revolutionary war or the many battles when winning the West. When Colt and Winchester manufactured their wonderful hand guns and rifles, we won the west. I am a constitutional conservative. We must protect our 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights. Without our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights the rest of the amendments will not mean much.

6:47 pm February 14, 2014

Constitutional Conservative wrote:

Thank you. I wish they would run my column and send me a hard copy!!! It has already been published in four states, but to have THEM issue it would be grand, eh?!

3:19 pm February 16, 2014

crimdefatty wrote:

Ms. Anderson Weeks - thank you for your post. That was a really interesting and articulate take on this issue.

3:49 pm February 21, 2014

Major Johnson wrote:

The second amendment is among our inalienable rights. Note the word inalienable. How exactly can anyone justify stripping an American citizen of an inalienable right? How can the courts say that you must prove you need an inalienable right or it will be denied you? Could we do this with freedom of speech, or unreasonable search and seizure, or freedom of religion?

This is beyond just that question though. Until fairly recently in South Carolina there was a law against sodomy and that crime was a felony. Oral sex with your wife fell under that law, so someone convicted of the crime of oral sex with their wife would by federal law be stripped of their second amendment right permanently. A 17 year old convicted of sodomy would lose a constitutional right for LIFE. And this is for an act that is not a crime at all in most states, and not a felony in all states that outlawed it (if any others even did), and even though that law has since been repealed in SC that 17 year old would have to go to court to regain his right. The basis for stripping this right for a burglary charge is based on a monetary value, under $500 a misdemeanor and over a felony, and every state has a different line of demarcation. If we allow inalienable rights to be stripped of citizens on this basis, then on what basis can citizens be stripped of each other inalienable right?

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.